run

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: execution is asynchronous, the call blocks only briefly, and it returns either an outcome or a job id with progress. It does not mention that outputs/logs are written to the case directory, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource before the execution semantics. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter job-launching tool with no output schema, the description covers the call mechanics but omits how to follow up on a returned job (job_status, read_log, solver_progress) and what side effects occur in the case directory. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity and the rich sibling set.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (np, app, log, args, case, wait_seconds, decompose_method) is already documented in the schema, including non-obvious details like mpirun/decomposition behavior and log rotation. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run an OpenFOAM application or case script') plus the execution mode ('as a background job'), which is enough to separate it from job_status or stop_job. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools an agent should pair it with, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'as a background job; waits briefly and reports the outcome or progress' implies when this tool fits (launching long-running solver or utility work) but gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives. With siblings like job_status, solver_progress, and read_log in the set, an agent must infer the follow-up path itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.